Ban Cellphones in Cars????

To me there is a much larger issue. I don't want the government telling me how to lead my life.

Phoenix32890 wrote:

To me there is a much larger issue. I don't want the government telling me how to lead my life.

You'd better go live somewhere without a govenrment, then. If you want to "lead your life" by watching child pornography or releasing toxic fumes or driving dangerously, then the government has a right and a duty to try to stop you doing those things.

One study using a driving simulator found that drivers conversing by cell phone were more likely than those talking to passengers to drift between lanes and to miss an exit they were instructed in advance to take. When the researchers analyzed the complexity of the conversations in this study, they found that drivers and passengers tended to modulate their speech in response to external traffic cues. For example, they stopped talking when a traffic problem developed, or the passenger would offer advice to help the driver navigate. Conversations taking place by cell phone, on the other hand, did not vary much in response to changing traffic conditions (perhaps no surprise, because only the driver was actually aware of what was happening on the road).

Some drivers have switched to hands-free cell phones in an effort to eliminate the physical distraction of trying to hold onto a cell phone while steering the car. But a review of studies concluded that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as handheld models. One study found that any cell phone use caused impairments similar to those observed in drunk drivers.

Drunk driving does seem to be a close parallel in a lot of ways. I'm sure there are people who can be somewhat buzzed and still drive well. But then there are a lot of people who can't, and the stakes are pretty high.

It might be the case, dunno.

Objective: The objective of this research was to determine the relative impairment associated with conversing on a cellular telephone while driving. Background: Epidemiological evidence suggests that the relative risk of being in a traffic accident while using a cell phone is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit. The purpose of this research was to provide a direct comparison of the driving performance of a cell phone driver and a drunk driver in a controlled laboratory setting. Method: We used a high-fidelity driving simulator to compare the performance of cell phone drivers with drivers who were intoxicated from ethanol (i.e., blood alcohol concentration at 0.08% weight/volume). Results: When drivers were conversing on either a handheld or hands-free cell phone, their braking reactions were delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents than when they were not conversing on a cell phone. By contrast, when drivers were intoxicated from ethanol they exhibited a more aggressive driving style, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them and applying more force while braking. Conclusion: When driving conditions and time on task were controlled for, the impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk. Application: This research may help to provide guidance for regulation addressing driver distraction caused by cell phone conversations.

Using a driving simulator under four different conditions: with no distractions, using a handheld cell phone, talking on a hands-free cell phone, and while intoxicated to the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level, 40 participants followed a simulated pace car that braked intermittently.

Researchers found that the drivers on cell phones drove more slowly, braked more slowly and were more likely to crash. In fact, the three participants who collided into the pace car were chatting away. None of the drunken drivers crashed.

"This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," said co-author Frank Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society."

You think I'm driving recklessly when I talk on my cell phone using my blue tooth ear receiver?

Or only if I'm involved in a wreck?

What if I'm involved in a wreck and the other car is completely at fault?

What if I had passengers in my car, and I was listening to one of them talk at the time of the wreck? What if I was listening to talk radio? What if I was looking at a road sign to see if I missed my exit?

You think I'm driving recklessly when I talk on my cell phone using my blue tooth ear receiver?

What if I'm involved in a wreck and the other car is completely at fault?

Can't we just agree that people who drive drunk, and people who yammer away on their phone while driving, are both assholes?

I think I made it clear that there would have to be an accident for the charges to be filed.

Quote:

What if I'm involved in a wreck and the other car is completely at fault?

It's very doubtful that, if you were using a cellphone at the time of the accident, the other car would be completely at fault. It's quite possible that if you had not been on the wireless device, you would have been able to avoid the accident through your own actions.

Quote:

What if I had passengers in my car, and I was listening to one of them talk at the time of the wreck? What if I was listening to talk radio? What if I was looking at a road sign to see if I missed my exit?

If you were doing any or all of these things at the time of the accident, you would be charged as I have already outlined.

Now let me ask you a question: If you knew that you might be charged with reckless driving or vehicular homicide, would you be more or less likely to take more care (drive slower, stop talking during lane changes or turns) than you do now because the consequences are greater?

Tico wrote:

You think I'm driving recklessly when I talk on my cell phone using my blue tooth ear receiver?

There's a spectrum here; it's not just 'Responsible vs. Reckless.' It's entirely fair to say that it's more dangerous to drive while talking on a bluetooth receiver, because experiments have shown this precisely to be the case.

Quote:

What if I'm involved in a wreck and the other car is completely at fault?

As far as I know, in similar instances - such as drunk driving - you still would be charged for being distracted, even if someone else plows into you. I don't know about your state, but in TX, where I'm from, I know two separate people who were driving drunk and were hit by ANOTHER drunk driver. Both got DUI's. I fail to see how this is any different.

I agree that a hands-free device is superior to a regular phone in this case, ...

... but how do you respond to the testing that has shown similar rates of distraction from those devices? Does this simply not matter to your opinion at all, as this is a behavior you like to engage in, and that supersedes evidence that it's dangerous?

I cannot relate. I'm not distracted to any perceptible degree when I talk on the phone. Maybe my brain is wired differently than a certain percentage of the population who lose the ability to focus on driving if they are speaking on the phone.

Sorry, but I highly doubt this is true. I think it's a lot more accurate to say that you BELIEVE you are not distracted while talking on the cell phone.

If I were to relate to my own personal experience with the matter, I would say that 90% of the time, you probably are right - but that's not the dangerous part. The dangerous part is that 10% of the time when you are on the phone and someone drops bad news or makes an outrageous comment; and all of a sudden, your attention to THAT spikes tremendously.

Let's also keep in mind that many of our laws that are on the books - as I'm sure you know - are due to the fact that many folks are stupid or irresponsible.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sorry, but I highly doubt this is true. I think it's a lot more accurate to say that you BELIEVE you are not distracted while talking on the cell phone.

And I highly doubt that you know what the hell you're talking about.

Quote:

If I were to relate to my own personal experience with the matter, I would say that 90% of the time, you probably are right - but that's not the dangerous part. The dangerous part is that 10% of the time when you are on the phone and someone drops bad news or makes an outrageous comment; and all of a sudden, your attention to THAT spikes tremendously.

That might happen to you 10% of the time, but not to me, to any sort of a degree that could be considered a dangerous distraction. And I didn't think that you drove a car.

Do you agree with JN that passengers and radios should be banned in cars as well?

Quote:

Let's also keep in mind that many of our laws that are on the books - as I'm sure you know - are due to the fact that many folks are stupid or irresponsible.

Many of our laws are on the books because the lawmakers are stupid or irresponsible. Have you ever watched a state legislature debate a proposed law? It's like watching sausage being made -- you do not want to see this.

RE: football, if Jennings hadn't been hurt, or if Rothlesberger didn't have a bum ankle, I'd feel about 10x better about my chances this week. Hopefully all Felix Jone's TD's will come from shovel passes.

Quote:

Do you agree with JN that passengers and radios should be banned in cars as well?

He wasn't being facetious when he said that? I could have swore he was.

But it's an evasion of the point I was making and you know it.

The majority of public safety laws are on the books because the average person has a middling record on these issues, not because the upper-end of our bell curve does.